This summer, during the special session, the governor reissued Executive Order 137. This order sought to create a standalone Department of Agriculture, a vital step to strengthen Alaska’s food security and reduce dependence on fragile supply chains. The governor acted under his clear constitutional authority to reorganize the executive branch for efficiency. That authority is not in dispute.

What is in dispute, and what I believe represents a grave breach of our Constitution, is the way legislative leadership handled it.

Instead of letting the process move forward as the Constitution requires, leadership flatly rejected the order. They claimed executive orders cannot be issued during a special session and that reissuance was prohibited because EO 136 had been rejected earlier in the year. Neither claim holds water. The Constitution’s reference to “a full session if of shorter duration” includes special sessions, and since the Governor does not operate under the legislature’s uniform rules, nothing prohibits reissuance. These objections are legally questionable and procedurally reckless.

With the stroke of a pen, two presiding officers ignored Article III, Section 23, disregarded the Uniform Rules, and denied 58 other lawmakers their right to act on behalf of their districts. No two individuals have the constitutional right to silence the voices of all Alaskans’ elected representatives.

Article III, Section 23 is clear. The governor may reorganize the executive branch by executive order, and the Legislature has sixty days of a regular session, or the entirety of a shorter session, to disapprove. Unless a majority of members in joint session vote to disapprove, the order takes effect. The framers gave us a collective responsibility, not the power for presiding officers to act as gatekeepers.

The Uniform Rules reinforce this. Rule 49(a)(4) directs that an executive order must go through committees and then be resolved by a majority vote in joint session. Rule 51 outlines how joint sessions are convened. Nowhere do the rules give anyone the authority to bury an order before it reaches the full body.

Yet that is exactly what happened. By refusing to introduce EO 137, leadership disenfranchised not just legislators but every Alaskan we represent. Their interpretation of the law may be debatable, but their duty was not. The proper course was to refer the order to committee, then to a joint session for a recorded vote. That did not happen, and that failure amounts to a constitutional breach.

As bad as this was, the legislature’s next step compounded the damage. On September 11, the Legislative Council voted 9–2 to spend up to $100,000 of taxpayer money to sue the governor over EO 137. This is irresponsible and indefensible. Leadership’s refusal to follow the Constitution created the impasse, yet we now seek to litigate against a governor acting within his authority? This is a huge waste of public funds and sets a dangerous precedent.

Alaskans deserve a Legislature that debates openly, records votes, and allows all 60 members to represent their districts. With Alaska importing $3 billion in food annually through a fragile supply chain, a Department of Agriculture could bolster local production, create jobs, and protect our communities from disruptions. Instead, leadership chose procedural gamesmanship. They prioritized power over process, partisanship over food security, and obstruction over efficiency.

This is part of a troubling pattern. EO 136 was rejected earlier this year under equally questionable reasoning. House Bill 140, which would have created the Department of Agriculture through legislation, never received a hearing. Now EO 137 has been buried without debate. Meanwhile, Alaskans remain exposed to the very risks the governor sought to address.

The Alaska Constitution is not optional. Article III, Section 23 exists to give the governor authority to reorganize for efficiency while ensuring the Legislature has the opportunity to disapprove as a body. That balance of power was carefully designed. When presiding officers decide they alone can reject an executive order without even allowing debate, they turn a constitutional safeguard into a weapon of obstruction. That is not what the framers intended.

I believe the governor is right to press forward. If the courts must decide, I am confident they will reaffirm his authority. But Alaskans should not have to depend on, or pay for, the judiciary to force their leaders to follow the Constitution. We should be able to trust that presiding officers will respect the law, honor their duty, and allow the people’s representatives to do their jobs.

This is about more than one executive order. It is about whether our system of government still works the way it was designed, with checks and balances, open debate, and respect for constitutional authority. Leadership’s actions in this case were a blatant overreach. They violated Article III, Section 23, ignored the Uniform Rules, wasted taxpayer money, and undermined public trust.

The people of Alaska deserve better. They deserve a Legislature that respects their right to representation, prioritizes food security and good governance over partisan games, and honors the Constitution our founders entrusted to us. I call on Alaskans to demand their legislators follow the law and allow open debate. Anything less is unacceptable, and I will continue to fight for a government that works for all of us.

Originally published on Substack: https://kevinjmccabe.substack.com/p/the-overreach-of-legislative-leadership